Another illegal, deported 5 times, re-entered each time, now with 3rd DUI, sentenced to...

In Virginia, a Mexican illegal invader who'd been deported five times was just convicted of his third DUI.

In most states, unless you're related to a politician, being convicted of a third DUI usually results in meaningful prison time.  But seeing as how invader Mario Santos-Ochoa is a member of a protected class (illegal invaders), he'll serve less than 9 months in jail.

The invader has been living in the U.S. illegally for 28 years.  He has four children, ages 9 to 21, all of whom were all born in the U.S., thus are legal citizens thanks to the insane "anchor baby" court ruling.

Santos-Ochoa was convicted in federal court in Texas of “re-entering the U.S. after being deported" three times — in 2009, 2011 and 2012.  He was sentenced to seven months, 180 days and 15 months, respectively, in federal prison.

In November, Santos-Ochoa was pulled over for erratic driving.  His blood alcohol content was 0.11 percent, 0.03 percent above the legal limit. Two years before the incident, Santos-Ochoa was convicted of his second DUI. He was also convicted three times of giving a false identity to police.
 Judge Frederick G. Rockwell III sentenced Santos-Ochoa to seven months suspended on the felony third offense DUI charge and fined him $1,000.  The illegal invader was also sentenced to  a paltry two months on the felony false-identity charge.  Of course in the cunning way of liberal judges, the sentences were *literally* five years for each, but with all but nine months suspended.  Cuz that allows lib judges to claim they're, like, really tough on crime.

Yeah.

Moonbat liberal chick blocks deportation of convicted Afghan--by refusing to sit down for takeoff

A country's mass media can convince at least half the population that up is down, evil is actually good, all cultures are equal and so on.  They do it by portraying something as "cool", "hip,"  "All the cool kids think X.  Don't you wanna be cool too?"  And of course virtually all gullible people enthusiastically agree.

Thus if a country's mass media decide to support what anyone with an IQ over room temperature can see is an insane, deadly policy, millions of naive, gullible people will drink the Kool-Aid and follow those leaders over the cliff.

Latest example is Sweden, where the media are fawning over a female college student for preventing authorities from deporting a native of Afghanistan to his native country.

The 52-year-old Afghan had been convicted of assaulting a Swedish woman.  He was most definitely not a good citizen.  The dumb liberal moonbat didn't know the man and had no idea why authorities were deporting him.  All she knew was what the liberal media and her liberal teachers had told her:  That importing millions of Muslim males was a good thing, and that all enlightened people agreed with this policy.  Thus deporting one was just awful, cruel.  Unenlightened.

So when she saw this obviously dark-skinned foreigner seated on the plane with Swedish immigration officers, she decided to stop it.

That's news by itself.  What makes it more newsworthy is how she did it:  She told the cabin crew she wouldn't sit down for takeoff unless the Afghan was taken off the plane.

Now, if you or I tried that here, the flight crew would have us removed from the plane.  Seems like the most reasonable thing to do.  But Swedish pols and media have drunk so much of the moron's Kool-Aid that either this never occurred to 'em, or else their superiors ordered 'em not to drag the moonbat off.  Cuz they didn't remove her, but instead did as she demanded.and took the Afghan assailant off the plane.

Let that sink in for a second:  The authorities are doing something completely legal and reasonable, but a moonbat obeccts--so refuses to allow the plane to take off until she gets her way.  And Sweden's mainstream media is literally calling this nut a hero. 

Hopefully you're starting to see  how this response leads to total disaster.

Oh, and in case you think it couldn't happen here: the Washington Post called the liberal student's tantrum a “dramatic act of civil disobedience,” while Newsweek described her as a “hero.”  In other words, our own Lying Media are totally fine with her act.  Cuz Open Borders, comrade.  Gotta stand in solidarity with The Narrative.

If you're connected you can steal $110,000 and only get ten days of community service

If you're an ordinary American and stole over $100,000, what do you think would happen?

Former Vice President Joe Biden's niece--31-year-old Caroline Biden--was recently convicted on a felony charge for making over $110,000 in unauthorized charges on someone else's credit card.

Then, inexplicably, her felony conviction was thrown out, and she was allowed to plead guilty to the far less-serious of petit larceny, which usually involves theft of less than $50 worth of property.

Wow, talk about bending the law!  How in the world did she get a deal like that?

So last week she was sentenced to...um...10 days of community service at a children’s hospital, and to pay full restitution of $110,810.04.

Biden isn't a stranger to run-ins with law enforcement:  In 2013 she was charged after she got into a fight with her roommate and took a swing at responding cops.  "I shouldn’t be handcuffed!" she yelled. "You don’t know who you’re doing this to!"

The New York Post notes that the charges were dropped and sealed against her in that case.

Wow.  It's almost as if there were two sets of laws in this country--one, with serious punishment, for ordinary folks, and another--consisting of kisses and fawning--for "connected" people.  Or maybe this is the new liberal rule for theft:  If you give the loot back, no punishment.

  Think non-connected people could get that deal?

But don't worry, citizen:  I'm sure this is exactly what the Founders had in mind.

By the way:  Trump had no control over this.  At all.

Wanna cut the cost of college? Fire half the "administrators"--starting with...

One of the dirtiest secrets of universities is the outrageous amount of overstaffing in what's slyly called "administration."  Administrators rarely do much of value, and some are total wastes.  And too many earn princely salaries--well up in six figures--to do whatever it is they claim to do.

An economics professor at a branch of the University of Michigan recently calculated that the entire UM has nearly 100 "diversity administrators," more than 25 of whom are paid over $100,000 a year.  With health insurance, retirement and other benefits they cost the University of Michigan about $11 million a year.  Adding in costs like travel to innumerable (but absolutely vital) conferences, the total cost rises to perhaps $14 million per year.

At some time in the past, universities didn't have a single "diversity administrator."  And if the number went to zero again overnight, there would not be a significant negative change in the student body or faculty.
While we're considering zeroing out the diversity bureaucracy, why not eliminate a quarter or more of other administrators at UM?  The Provost’s Office, for example, includes, in addition to the provost, 39 “senior staff” and 26 “additional staff.” Not only does the U of M have its own secretary of state (“vice-provost for Global Engagement”) but also a deputy secretary of state (an “associate vice-provost”) as well. Couldn’t the provost limp along with only 40 staffers under him instead of 65?

The College of Literature, Science and the Arts has 14 administrative offices within it (!!), not including administrators in each of the academic departments themselves. 

I suspect it would be easy to design a U of M with at least 500 fewer administrators, saving well over $50 million per year.  Administrators have taken control of universities and have no incentive to cut costs, to reduce the size of their empires or their power.

Another cop killed by yet another illegal alien

In Florida an illegal immigrant from Haiti fatally shot a cop.

Happens far too often, and the victims aren't just police officers.  Illegal invaders kill far too many Americans, civilians as well as police officers.

The twist here is that over the years that the killer had been in the U.S. he'd been charged with several previous crimes, and had been arrested by various local police departments.  Because he was illegal (had stayed years past the expiration of his visa), ICE had issued "detainer requests" for him.

Only one department honored the detainer, and turned the guy over to ICE.  But because Obama was prez, and had ordered federal agents not to deport illegals unless they'd been convicted of serious crimes--the definition of "serious" apparently being quite flexible--the guy was released instead of being deported.  Interesting.

Something else interesting:  by law, states must comply with federal law AND Supreme Court commands.  It's called the "supremacy principle," and it seems to apply to every federal law... EXCEPT ice detainers, apparently.  For example, the Supreme Court ruled states can't require a "poll tax," must obey fed clean-air or water laws and so on.  If federal law makes it a crime to discriminate against a protected class, states can't do that.

The only laws that states seem to be able to ignore are federal immigration laws.  Seems...damn strange.

Florida cop killed by illegal alien from Haiti

Liberals have found a war they like: on plastic straws

Dateline: Peoples' Republic of Santa Barbara (CA)

Treasonous Mitch McConnell is violating the Constitution

If you've ever wondered why, when conservatives vote the Republicans control of both branches of congress [spit!] but very little conservative legislation is passed, or why the government continues to spend massive amounts of money on things Democrats want, but not conservatives, the main reason is the senate majority leader--a sneaky, treasonous son of a bitch named Mitch McConnell.

If you think I'm exaggerating about the "treasonous" part, consider:  If a pol violates the Constitution, what would you call it?

Here's how he utterly defeated the will of the people:

If you control spending, you control the government.  Every single aspect depends on funding.

The Founders--the most brilliant men on the planet--set up the House to be more responsive to the will of the people, since they had to stand for election every two years.  And because they also knew that control of spending was control of government policies, they wrote into the Constitution that all spending bills had to originate in the House.  The senate [spit!] could only agree or disagree with proposed House spending.

It was utterly brilliant.  A magnificent piece of understanding human nature and crafting rules that would (in theory, at least) keep treasonous rat-bastards from blocking the good results the Founders wanted.

Except the Founders didn't reckon with the cunning of people like McConnell.

McConnell figured out how to totally, utterly thwart the will of voters, so that electing conservative representatives in the House would have no influence at all on government spending.  His treasonous plan totally negated the votes for every conservative member of the House.

You think that's impossible.  That's because you believe the Lying Mainstream Media.

What the Media doesn't tell you is that the senate majority leader has virtually total control over whether a bill passed by the House is even brought up for a floor vote in the senate.  And in 2017, out of 768 bills passed by the House, McConnell refused to let the senate vote on 569 of them.  Thus those 569 bills had no influence at all on government policy.  Any good corrections proposed and passed by the GOP-majority House were defeated by a single person--the treasonous McConnell.

As every adult with an IQ over room temperature knows, the spending of every federal agency is supposed to be specified in "the budget"--a bill which the Constitution says must be originated and passed by the House.  Unfortunately the Founders neglected to be more specific about whether the senate could *change* the House bill, instead of simply having to either vote yes or no.  But with other bills, the senate can pass its OWN version.  When that happens, bills go to a "conference committee," whose proceedings are secret.  Such committees include the majority and minority leaders of both chambers.  So Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, along with RINO Paul Ryan. 

Thus all that was necessary for McConnell to control the budget of every agency of the federal government was to have the senate pass a slightly different version of the budget bill.

The "conference committee"--meeting entirely in secret--writes their own budget bill, which must have McConnell's approval to be considered for a floor vote in the senate.  Because no one wants to buck the leadership, it passed.  At that point the president knew it was the only thing McConnell would agree to, so the president was forced to either sign it or risk the firestorm of a government shutdown.

What McConnell did violates the Constitution in the most direct way possible:  That document--once considered by everyone the supreme law of the land--specifies that all budget bills must start with the House, all of the members of which are elected every two years.  When McConnell uses his position to re-write the budget--by blocking a straight up-or-down vote on the House bill--it nullifies the very prudent provision that ONLY the House can authorize government spending.



McConnell has taken over control of the treasury.  He's cut the House out of the budget process.  And Democrats in congress couldn't be happier.

Canadian jihadists say "I'm voting Liberal!"

Like many countries, Canada has a Muslim problem.  But don't worry, Canadians:  You have the skilled leader Justin "Baby Doc" Trudeau, and the Liberal party, to solve things.



And what's the Liberals' solution? Simple:

• Continue unlimited immigration and open borders;
• Make it even harder (if that's possible) for ordinary citizens to defend themselves;
• Order CBC and RCMP to never blame any crime on Muslims, even when that's who did it;
• Keep telling voters "We don't have  a Muslim problem, citizen!  That's crazy-talk!"
• Keep releasing people caught with 42 kilograms of carfentanyl and 33 illegal handguns on bail, since they clearly don't pose a threat to anyone;
• Open more government-funded drug "shooting galleries" where addicts can shoot up in comfort, with medics standing by;

See?  Solutions are simple if you deny problems are real, and block proposals that might actually help.  So vote liberal.

Another compilation of the Lying Media telling us that every poll showed a HUGE lead for Hilliary

The belly-laughter triggered by watching compilations of the Lying Media telling you how Hilliary had the biggest lead in history over Trump--double-digits, citizen!--never gets old.

San Francisco pols introduce law to ban employee cafeterias in new construction. Cuz...

San Francisco is home to lots of big, successful companies, and their headquarters often contain employee cafeterias, which offer a very attractive alternative to fighting heavy traffic to go "off campus" for lunch.

Well, a couple of the city's "supervisors" (like members of city councils but with almost unllimited power) don't think that's fair, comrade, cuz you can only eat there if you're...wait for it...employed by that company.  So supervisors Ahsha Safaí and Aaron Peskin are co-sponsoring an ordinance that would ban “employee cafeterias” from new office buildings in the city.

"Right on, comrades!  We'll never have the perfect socialist society if a few privileged people get to eat lunch in the employee cafeteria!  We want them to force them to eat at local restaurants that are open to all.  No special privileges for employees!"

Next up:  A city ordinance banning companies from offering health insurance!  Cuz it's just not fair, comrade!  Employees of fat-cat mega-corporations should be forced to buy Obamacare insurance just like everyone else!

Next:  Did you know some fat-cat employees of mega-corporations drive [gasp!] luxury cars?  Why should some privileged people--and of course they're disproportionately white--to drive luxury cars while others use public transit, which is far more environmentally friendly?  It's simply not fair that some people are hurting Mother Gaia far more than others, simply for their own selfish convenience.

Interviewer asks people what they think of socialist policies. "Yay!" Then "Who will pay for all the free stuff?"

Democrats and their media allies have succeeded in convincing at least half of all Americans that socialism is the best of all possible worlds--WAY better than capitalism, private enterprise and so on.
And one big reason is that socialism promises to give people free everything--free college, free health care, free housing, guaranteed income regardless of whether you work.

Hey, why would anyone NOT support such a wonderful system, eh?

So, what happens when these same people--the ones who have nothing but praise for this wonderful socialism--are asked "Who will pay for all the free stuff?"  Take a look at the clip below.

They also say socialism is working very well in unspecified "other nations."  But when these same people are asked "So, do you feel that Venezuela is a good example of how socialism is working?" they all went blank.  "Uhh...sure, it's great there."  Or "I don't know anything about Venezuela."

So chalk up another win for the Lying Mainstream Media.  If they were honest they'd be reporting on the unprecedented humanitarian disaster in socialist Venezuela.  But they aren't honest.  They're total, inveterate liars in the service of advancing Democrat rule and socialism, at any cost.

Democrat policies for November and beyond are simple: Socialism, and impeachment

Today's Democrat party seems to have two ideas:  First, they've gone full-blown socialist.  It's no longer just the lunatic "progressive" fringe, but the party's leaders--Kamala Harris, Chuck Schumer, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Keith Ellison, Tom Perez, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and rising star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez--rushing to embrace socialism.

The second meme driving the Dems is their goal of impeaching or fatally crippling president Trump.  This is the main theme they're using to get their supporters to vote in November: "We need to retake control of congress so we can impeach him."

Dem strategists see this--correctly--as a winning strategy with their supporters, as they've convinced that group of morons that Donald Trump is Satan.  And they're determined to fan the flames of hate even hotter.  To do this they recently announced their intention to enlist the advice of Hollywood writers, directors, and producers to craft Tinseltown-style messaging to further demonize Trump and Republicans. 

Given the four-letter tirades of Robert De Niro, the vulgar tweets of Peter Fonda, the daily broadsides by late-night "comedy" show hosts, and the rallying cries and rants of entertainment elites everywhere, the Hollywood message to conservatives and "deplorables" is clear, and can be reduced to two words: F--- you!

Democrat leaders are focusing on Trump-hate and socialism because that's all they've got.  Their only vision for the future is socialism.  There is no Democratic counterpart that would "Make America Great Again"--in large part because not one Democrat leader believes America was EVER great, nor moral.  And because they've so demonized the notion of Americans thinking well of America, now no Democrat candidate could support American greatness even if he or she believed in it.

Democrats have always favored leftist policies, but the huge leftward jump of the Dems in the last few years is largely the legacy of Barack Obama.  One of Obama's main campaign themes was that he intended to "fundamentally transform America,": "redistributing" wealth, vilifying the rich, expanding government control of America's production through executive orders and regulations; expanding the welfare state and pushing identity politics.  His foreign policy--which all Dem leaders fully embrace--was to apologize to the world for America's evil, and to appease opponents.

He achieved all those things.  And without a single exception, Democrat leaders support them all. 

While it's likely that some Democrat voters disagree with some of these policies, that disagreement doesn't translate into loss of support, because no Democrat is willing to object publically, since they know that speaking up would get them unfriended and ostracized.

Obama succeeded in getting the Dem party to adopt his radical goals of changing America from an individual rights-based society to a left-wing, European-style social state where individual rights are subordinated to the collective good--as determined by Democrats, of course.  He won election because the media carefully hid his socialist convictions from voters.

Obama knew that the fastest way to bring about that radical change was to prey on white guilt about what he consistently portrayed as America's greatest sin: racism.  In speech after speech at home and abroad, in press conferences with foreign dignitaries; even speaking at the United Nations, Obama rarely missed a chance to paint America as a society awash with bigotry, injustice and discrimination.

The result was that white liberals--including all members of congress--would do anything blacks demanded.  By contrast, racist acts by blacks--like knocking out random 70-year-old whites, for example--was considered by Dem leaders and the media merely a declaration of cultural pride and a legitimate response to "oppression."  It became a cliche that only whites could be racists, because minorities supposedly lacked political power.


The contradiction between this core belief--that blacks lacked political power--even as the U.S. was being ruled for 8 long years by a black president--was always ignored...because it would have destroyed the faaabulous Narrative.

So where does this leave us?  Well, the most recent poll showed Dems leading GOP candidates for the November elections by 12 points, so it would seem that the Dems' strategy of pushing socialism and impeaching Trump is working for 'em.

H/T Russell Paul La Valle at America Thinker. 

Oregon judge decrees that students have NO constitutional right to privacy in dressing rooms

From what I've read it seems clear that at least half the judges in the U.S. are total leftist idiots.  Which means they'll issue rulings supporting the Left's position on anything, regardless of the lack of legal merit.

Recent example:  After Obozo's lackeys in the federal Department of Non-education sent a letter to every school board saying 'If you don't allow trans-gender students to use the locker room of whatever sex they claim to be, we in the majestic, all-powerful Department of Non-education will rule you guilty of violating Title 9 of the Civil Rights Act of bullshit bullshit, and you'll lose all federal funding."

I hear some of you saying "That's nonsense!  The federal government would never do such a ridiculous thing!"  Really?  In 2015, the Obama Administration Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights threatened to remove funding from Illinois' Township High School District 211 if it didn't permit a boy claiming to be a girl to use the girls locker room.  The letter from the department informed the district that it was violating Title IX, which barred sex discrimination in K-12 districts that received federal funding.

Needless to say, being threatened with losing federal funding quickly brought virtually every school board in the country into line fast.  But a handful of "deplorable" parents in Oregon objected to their kids' school enforcing Obozo's decree, and sued their school district, claiming their sons had a reasonable expectation of--and indeed, an implied constitutional right to--privacy.

Now a federal judge in that case has ruled in favor of the school district (thus Obozo's tranny policy), ruling that "students" in that school district do NOT have a constitutional right to privacy in dressing rooms.  So in this case the judge has ruled that a girl who claims she is a boy shall be allowed to use the boys' bathrooms and locker room. 

Coming from a liberal judge in insanely-liberal Oregon, this isn't surprising.  What is surprising is the "reasoning" used by the judge to support this ruling.

U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez literally ruled that

"High school students do not have a fundamental privacy right to not share school restrooms, lockers, and showers with transgender students whose biological sex is different than theirs.

He added that the fact that a student might be seen by someone of the opposite biological sex while  undressing or performing bodily functions ‘does not give rise to a constitutional violation,

He ruled that the stress the boys felt was not "comparable to the plight of transgender students who are not allowed to use facilities consistent with their gender identity.”

This is revealing, because school had built a "gender-neutral" bathroom specifically for the transgender girl (who decided she wanted to be a boy).  She had been using this bathroom to dress for gym, but wanted to use the boys locker room instead-- because the gender-neutral bathroom was farther away from the gym.  This "I want" triggered the school district's decree, which in turn prompted the parents' lawsuit.

Now from a tactical standpoint, the Oregon parents would have been smarter to find a case where a boy wanted to be a girl, since if the idiot judge was determined to support Obozo's decree,  he would have had to rule that teenage girls in public schools had no constitutional right to privacy.  And since kids are forced by law to attend school, this would have enraged millions of parents of teen girls.

Ooooh, think that ruling would likely have swung a million votes in November?  Cuz most fathers take a very dim view of school adminishits forcing their daughters to share dressing rooms with guys.

The coda to this story is that when Obozo's lackeys forced their tranny policy down the throats of schools, they claimed that NOT opening locker rooms to students wishing or claiming to be the opposite gender violated the vaunted "Title IX" law barring "sex discrimination."  This is a flat-out lie:  The actual, y'know, statute says nothing about this.  Instead, the Department of Non-education's "Office of Civil Rights" simply decreed that the law now covered trannies too.

Isn't that precious?  Like emperor Obama himself, his minions felt free to change laws simply by unilaterally declaring their new meaning.  And that you would be fined if you didn't comply with their new interpretation.

But c'mon, citizen--the Dems have never supported the idea that congress makes laws, not Democrat presidents.

Democrat rising star says any senator who votes to confirm Kavanaugh is "complicit in evil"

Cory Booker is one of the stars of the Democrat party.  Yesterday he stood with fellow Dem stars Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren and Bernie Sanders to tell Americans that any senator who votes to confirm Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court was "complicit in evil."

Yep, "evil."  "“You are either complicit in the evil, you are either contributing to the wrong, or you are fighting against it,” he said.  Here's the video:



Isn't it interesting:  Most Democrats didn't believe in the concept of evil--until Trump was elected.

Five new ideas for Democrats to introduce as bills--modelled on Kamala Harris's brilliant bill

Comment on a popular Democrat website:

We note with huge approval the introduction by the next U.S. president, Kamala Harris, of the Rent Relief Act in the U.S. senate.  Senator Harris was outraged to learn that many Americans were paying 30% or more of their income for rent.  She recognized this as unfair, and wanted to "ease their burden."  So her bill would give a tax credit to people who spend over 30% on rent.

But why stop there?  There are so many things that are "unfair" to low-income people, and each of these terribly unfair conditions cries out for "easing their burden" with a similar Harris-style bill.  Here are some of the ones we found:

• Democrats should pass a law banning the use of credit scores, since virtually all low-income people have low credit scores, and since higher scores let people borrow money at lower interest rates.
• Democrats should pass a law banning first-class and business-class air travel.  These two classes have wider seats, more leg-room and free drinks, but are far more expensive than coach class.  This is unfair to poor people who don't have the extra money to be able to afford the pricier seats.
• Public transit produces less CO2 per seat-mile, so is far better for the planet, but the rich insist on driving their gas-hog Mercedes or super-luxury SUV's.  This just isn't fair, so Democrats should pass a law tripling the price of gasoline.  If that doesn't make the rich give up their cars, we need a second law banning cars from downtown areas, like many European cities do.  Also, by forcing the rich to use public transit, they'll be way more willing to support much-needed improvements in city systems.
• To drive legally, car owners must have automobile "liability insurance," but in many cities this insurance is outrageously expensive.  Many low-income families spend up to 20% of their income on this required insurance.  This is unfair-- we need to 'ease the burden' of the cost of transportation on the poor.  So Democrats need to pass a law that would have the government offer liability insurance to low-income people at cost.  Because the insurer would be a non-profit government agency, the price should be far lower than what private companies charge, since we don't have to jack prices up to make a profit.  In fact this would be modelled after Obamacare, which Democrat analysts say saved the average family $2,500 per year on health insurance.
• Low-income people spend a greater percentage of their income on food than the rich do.  This is terribly unfair, and as Democrats we need to "ease this burden" on them.  What's needed is a law that would expand the hugely successful "EBT" program, giving EBT cards to every family making less than 120 percent of the poverty level.  After all, the government already spends $71 billion per year on food stamps, which could be eliminated by giving EBT cards to everyone.  Imagine, we could actually save money by giving EBT cards to everyone!!  This would mirror the Democrat proposals to expand Medicare coverage to everyone, regardless of age.  If the government runs everyone's health insurance, surely there shouldn't be any complaints about giving EBT-cards to all low-income people.

Wow!  All five of these ideas sound just SUPER!  I expect the Dems will jump on all of these as soon as they regain a majority in the House.

Wait...you mean this was satire?  But how the hell can you tell?

Rising Dem star introduces bill to have government pay part of the rent for favored people

Like Barack Hussein Obama, leftist Democrat Kamala Harris "came out of nowhere," rising from an unknown to the top of the Democratic party in just six years.  She's now a U.S. senator from the Peoples' Republic of California.

I'll describe her amazingly fast rise from obscurity to the U.S. senate at the end of this post, but right now it's more important that you see what she's just done:  Because the Left is all about what they cunningly call "social justice" (cuz who could possibly be against "justice," right?), when Kamala heard that millions of Americans pay over 30% of their pay on rent, she was OUTRAGED!  To this fast-rising Democrat star it was just unconscionable that millions of people would have to pay SO MUCH of their earnings on rent.

This surely had to be a crisis, and since the Democrats have always believed in not letting a good crisis go to waste, Kamala introduced a bill she calls the "Rent Relief Act."

Watch the papers for this one--cuz all the signs are that Kamala will be leading the Dem party in two years, which will enable her to get what she wants as far as Dem legislation.

So what would Kamala's "Rent Relief Act" do?

Well you might guess that it's a rent-control act, which is bad enough.  But it's actually worse.  A LOT worse.

If passed, this law would make the federal gruberment "pay" a big chunk of the monthly rent for favored people.

Which, of course, means that taxpayers would be paying part of the rent for 'em.

But Kamala is even more clever, cuz her bill--scheme--works by giving renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rent a "tax credit" instead of paying landlords directly.  Cuz the concept of "tax credits" is well-known and established, so no one could possibly object to it, eh?

Now,  If you're a hard-working citizen you may not be familiar with the term "tax credit."  Not surprisingly, a "tax credit" reduces the tax you owe.  But if someone doesn't make enough to pay income tax, the government will write that person a check.  As a Kamala lackey quickly added to her twatter account, "This means more money in your bank account and more money invested back into the economy.

Notice the cunning use of the phrase "invested back into the economy."   As anyone remotely familiar with economics instantly recognizes, welfare isn't actually an investment, any more than your giving your kid ten bucks to spend at the movies is.  But to a Democrat/socialist, it is.  

Cuz they say so.  That's why.

If you're a low-info voter you're probably thinking "Hey, the gummint paying part of my rent!  What a great idea," right?  Cuz who wouldn't like taxpayers to write 'em a check for somewhere between $500 and $2000 per month, eh?

Okay, let's pause for a second:  The idea that the likely next Democrat presidential nominee would have already introduced a bill to make taxpayers pay part of the rent for her supporters sounds way too outrageous to be real, right?  The story simply has to be fake, something from a satire blog.  It's gotta be right-wing-nut stuff.

Unfortunately it's real.  Here's Kamala describing the problem in her own words:

Nationally, over 21M Americans spend more than 30% of their paychecks on rent. That’s absurd.

I introduced the #RentReliefAct to help ease the burden. This equals more money in people’s pockets at the end of the year.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) July 21, 2018

Notice that Kamala cunningly doesn't say that the bill will make the gruberment "pay" part of the rent, because people would immediately see what was going on.  Instead she cleverly says she wants to "help ease the burden."  Cuz how could any compassionate person be opposed to "easing the burden" of another, eh?

See the handwriting on the wall yet?  One of the keys to the election of the socialist Muslim Obama was that he promised "free" stuff--like free health care--to his followers.  And better yet, he promised that "the rich" would pay for it.  Problem is, when pols say "free stuff," it's not really free.  Someone has to pay for it.  And if you think "the rich" will pay--as he promised--you're too naive to vote.

Obozo's "Affordable" care act--you know, that great Democrat plan that they promised would save the average family $2,500 per year!!!--was funded by simply borrowing huge amounts from the Chinese and stuck your grandkids with the tab.  As most people with an IQ over room temperature will understand, that's not only indefensible, it also isn't sustainable.  But of course we're talking Democrats here, and 90 percent of them don't understand anything about economics.

So the fact that any given Dem program is financially insane doesn't bother 'em a bit.

Okay, at the top of this post I mentioned Kamala being just like Obama--coming out of nowhere in a meteoric rise to stardom.  In the Kenyan's case, he went from a state senator (no significant achievements) to U.S. senator (again, no significant achievements) to president in an unbelievably short 11 years.

Similarly, in 1990, at the age of 26, Harris was hired as a deputy district attorney in Alameda County, California.  In 1993 she started "dating" the most powerful man in California politics--Democrat Speaker of the state Assembly, Willie Brown, 30 years her senior.  Brown introduced her to the most powerful people in the California and Sacramento political and social establishments, ensuring her funding for later elections. 

In 2003, with Brown's backing and fundraising help, Harris was elected DA of the city and county of San Francisco--giving her near-total control of which suspects were charged and prosecuted.

Seven years later, in 2010--again with Brown's backing--she was elected Attorney-General of  California.

Just six years after that, in 2016, Harris won the U.S. senate seat opened by the retirement of Democrat Diane Feinstein.  So while she hasn't risen as fast as the golden Obama, it's still amazing.

And today, having been a U.S. senator just 18 months, she's introduced a bill that would cost on the order of ten Billion dollars per year, and would push the U.S. further toward socialism.

And half the electorate thinks this is absolutely great.

Group of university professors starts campaign to *block* free speech on campus

From a purely logical standpoint, most people would think university professors would generally support free speech.

Nope.  The American Association of University Professors (AAUP)--a far-left organization--has announced a campaign to repeal or block new pro-free-speech laws, and new rules and guidelines on campuses nationwide that seek to protect free speech.

After fascists (posing as Antifa) staged riots in Berkeley to prevent invited conservative speakers from speaking there, several state legislatures passed laws making such actions illegal.  Similarly, several universities introduced rules or regulations to do the same thing.

The AAUP--like all lefty organizations--saw this as a threat to their power, so they devised the new program--called “One Faculty, One Resistance”--to block these laws, rules and regs.

In other words, they want to shut down campus free speech.

The group explained the "lib logic" in a document, claiming

So-called ‘Campus free-speech’ bills actually seek to suppress speech, by creating a litigious environment and imposing minimum penalties on protesters.

The group is transparent in their anti-free speech stance.  They say they're concerned about new state laws that punish students who shut down guest speaker events.  In some states, students could face expulsion or suspension up to one year for interfering with the free expression of others.

Four Somalis brutally gang-rape 13-yr-old Swedish girl, upload video; sentenced to 4 *months* of "youth detention"

In Sweden, in June of last year four Somalis raped a 13-year-old girl.  Two of the Somalis filmed the vicious gang-rape and uploaded it to social media. 

Three of the sadistic, rat-bastard monsters were tried and found guilty.  The fourth wasn't even charged with a crime, as Swedish law has a totally idiotic, outrageous provision that monsters under 16 can't be punished AT ALL.

The videos were played for the jury and were the strongest evidence in the case.

This April the three Somalis were sentenced to eight months in youth detention--for "rape of a child." Prosecutors--using the keen insight characteristic of all liberals--simply dismissed the charge of creating child pornography for filming their attack on the 13-year-old.

A few native Swedes found such a light sentence--for the gang-rape of a 13-year-old girl--to be outrageous.  Amazingly, one prosecutor agreed, and appealed both the light sentence, and that the fourth Somali was given no punishment at all for his part in the vicious gang rape.

Now the court of appeals has rendered its decision:  And that group of liberal morons cut the rapists' sentences from eight months to just four months of youth detention.  And again, the fourth rapist received no punishment whatsoever on the excuse that he is under 16 and thus is considered to be a child.

The article that reported this didn't have any explanation for why the appeals court reduced the sentences.

Assholic Swedish law also bars deporting any of the convicted sadistic rat-bastards because they all  have dual citizenship in Sweden and Somalia.  Amazing.

But by all means, politicians:  do, do keep importing monsters with no self-restraint, no skills, no education, no regard for the rights of women or "infidels."  If they rape hundreds of Swedish girls every year it's a small price to pay for signalling your magnificent virtue to your liberal peers.

Man who was about to testify about the Clinton Foundation supposedly "commits suicide" in Miami

On July 11th a guy by the name of Klaus Eberwein was found dead in a Miami motel of a gunshot to the head.  Hey, Miami, fortunately only happens on days ending in "y," eh?

Medical Examiner says suicide, but the story in the Miami Herald story has NO details from the ME's office.  That could be the reporter's fault, or an editor's decision, but could also be "We found a weapon in the room, so he must have committed suidide.

So why is this of interest to you?

Cuz from May 2012 until February 2015 Klaus Eberwein was director general of the economic development agency for the government of Haiti.  And why is that of interest?

Cuz he was scheduled to testify before the Haitian Senate Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission just two weeks later--and was widely expected to testify that the Clinton Foundation misappropriated  international donations for earthquake relief.

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article160983614.html#storylink=cpy

So maybe that claim of "suicide" should be double-checked right away, before the body is quickly cremated, as happened following the unexpected death of Supreme Court justice Scalia.  Cuz, see, if you're powerful and want to get away with a hit, you lean on the M.E. to declare suicide even if there are screaming red flags of contradictory evidence.  And of course once the body is gone....

I'll bet our faaabulous Federal Bureau of Incompetence Investigation would figure it out, eh?

Hahahahahahahaha!  Yeah, that's funny.  The FIBBIs could have video of a guy shooting Eberwein but if they suspected it was Hilliary's doing they'd burn the tapes and agree with suicide. 

I'd be*very* interested to read the detailed medical examiner's report, and detailed police investigation.  For instance, look for fingerprints other than the vic's on the shell casings. Look for the gun improperly placed in the vic's hand...perp wants to get away fast and often f's that up.

The coincidence here--supposedly shoots himself just a week before he was to testify--is as suspicious as that supposedly "accidental" meeting between Bill Clinton and Obama's attorney-general, the useless Loretta Lynch, in her jet on the parking apron at Phoenix a mere three DAYS before Comey was to testify to the House committee saying yes she broke the law but we won't charge her because mumble mumble bullshit two sets of laws.

Coincidence my ass.

Just another day in drug-crazed Baltimore

There are lots of very successful blacks in the U.S. The fellow below is one of them.

His name is Karon Peoples, resident of the charming, cultured city of Baltimore.  Karon is just 24 years old, and is making $400,000 a month.

Karon Peoples:  Just trying to give his customers the most bang for their heroin dollar

Karon does this by selling heroin--apparently very successfully:  Last December cops seized two pounds of heroin and $400,000 in cash from his stash house. They also recovered heroin from his car.

So far just a normal day in Baltimore.  But they also seized 49 (!) cell phones, a search of which revealed hundreds of texts arranging heroin sales across Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

Authorities found that 9 of the people on the other end of the texts had died...of...wait for it...heroin overdose.  (Another 18 people had overdosed but survived.)

Initially he was stopped and found with 70 grams of heroin, at which point he was charged NOT with intent to sell but simple possession of a controlled substance.  He was released on $50,000 bond.

Subsequently search warrants were executed on two residences linked to Peoples.  That's when police found about 900 grams of heroin, $405,000 in cash, and two watches valued at about $70,000 and $20,000.

He was then arrested again and was held without bail until his trial.  At trial--amazingly--he pleaded guilty to selling heroin.

You need to realize that the Democrat pols who rule all the largest cities--including Baltimore--claim drug use is a "victimless crime."  Of course those dead from overdose, or those who are robbed by junkies to buy the stuff, would disagree, but that means nothing to the pols pushing The Narrative.  Cuz when they say "a victimless crime" all they're referring to is to that very reasonable maxim that Dems have pushed for decades:  that if you're an adult you should be allowed to do anything you want to to your own body. 

But c'mon, Democrats:  "Victimless"??  That's utter horse-shit. 

Actually I'm astonished that Democrat senator--and the party's next presidential nominee--Kamala Harris, hasn't introduced a bill to "ease the burden of the high cost of drugs on addicts" by having the federal gruberment sell seized heroin and oxy and pot to anyone for a couple of bucks per fix.

You just know she wants to do that.  Very compassionate, see?  Very edgy.  "Progressive."

Member of Democratic Socialists of America (i.e.communists) shows what happens to counter-revolutionaries

"See, comrades? This is what happens to the enemies of our glorious socialist revolution!"

Alexandria Ocasio-Lopez, member of Democratic Socialists of America, winner of NYC Democrat primary for congress

"Motor Voter" law-- voter registration on drivers' license issuance--enables illegals to vote

Democrats, Leftists, socialists and communists are masters of  using emotion and guilt to get ghastly, abusive laws passed, then a year or two later, exploiting a deliberately-included loophole in said law to achieve an effect that they absolutely, totally promised the law could NEVER be used to achieve.

Here's just one example, of hundreds:  In 1993 the ineffably corrupt, stupid congress passed a creature called The National Voter Registration Act of 1993. 

Hey, how could anyone possibly vote against...voter rights, eh?  I mean, the Dems were wailing and whining about it being just too effing hard for minorities to register to vote.  So naturally all the Democrats and half the Repubs voted for it.

That law contained an intentional provision that some here in flyover country call a "woolybooger" — a bomb that critics said WOULD be exploited to enable non-citizens to register to vote.  It was called "motor voter", and it require--forced at the point of a gun--that every state offer everyone applying for a driver’s licenses the option of registering to vote.

Problem was that there was no effective requirement for state motor vehicle divisions to determine whether applicants were U.S. citizens.  Accordingly, in Democrat-ruled states this provision was used to register millions of non-citizens to vote.

Democrats laughed uproariously at the very idea that the law could possibly be misused this way.  "Stupid paranoid Rethuglicans!"  Yeah.  I was well over 30 in 1993 and recall the scoffing very well.  California Democrats even claimed that all drivers' licenses issued to non-citizens would clearly be marked "Not valid for voting" or some such.  They even showed a mockup of a license, with the phrase in big red block letters.

See, comrade?  How could this possibly be used to enable a non-citizen to vote?

This was a cunning misdirection, because the Democrats had another scheme ready to work with Motor Voter:  They'd go on to mount court challenges against requiring any voter, in any state, to show photo ID to vote.  They were able to have even the most carefully-crafted voter ID laws declared invalid in almost every state.

If the Democrats succeeded in barring state election officials from asking for proof of identity, the only thing keeping illegals from voting was getting registered.  And with states now FORCED to issue licenses without seeing proof of citizenship, that final impediment was removed.

Cool, huh?  Worked out just like critics predicted--and just as the Democrats planned it.

And as to how well it worked?  In Pennsylvania alone, the Department of Transportation admitted that the motor voter law enabled what they said was "thousands" of non-citizens to seamlessly register to vote through just getting driver’s licenses.

"Thousands"?  Ha.  Last December a Philadelphia city commissioner estimated that over 100,000 non-citizens were registered to vote over the past two decades statewide.

Many of the newly registered aren't even legal residents.  A public-interest foundation recently reported that a dozen states hand out driver’s licenses to illegal aliens – more than a million in California alone – and other states are being forced to do so by the courts.

Ya starting to see why the Democrats pulled out all the stops to shut down the investigation into nationwide voter fraud in the last presidential election?  

All the experts agree: Confiscating guns from private citizens works!!

All-black govt of South Africa orders citizens to surrender their guns

For decades, white-run South Africa was by far the most prosperous nation on the African continent.  Never had famine, had clean cities, great highways, booming economy--the whole enchilada.  The economy was so good that millions of blacks from the rest of Africa streamed in to find work, so eventually the country was 90% black and ten percent white.

Western liberal governments considered it outrageous that a country that was just ten percent white was run by that minority.  Accordingly, western nations began a decades-long program of pressuring the white government of South Africa to simply resign, and give control of the country to blacks.  This, said all liberals everywhere, would make the society incalculably better, more fair, more prosperous.

Finally in 1994 the white government did just as the liberals demanded:  they handed over the keys and resigned.  With 80% of the population, blacks won every seat, and for the last 24 years South Africa has been run entirely by blacks--specifically, by the "African National Congress," whose members are communist in every way but name.

The country is no longer prosperous.  It's having to import food, because black gangs have killed 20,000 farmers on isolated farms since 1994, reducing the food supply.  Because of ghastly financial corruption the nation's currency is worth about only two or three percent of its 1994 value.  But I've posted several stories on the economic disaster before, and that's not the purpose of this post.

Over the last decade or so the ANC has seen a more extreme left-wing rival emerge, called the Economic Freedom Fighters party.  It's run by a literal maniac, but for years has been slowly gaining on the ruling ANC because young black South Africans--having been endlessly told that they're the natural leaders of the universe, want to kill the remaining whites and take their property.

In a country ruled by rational thinkers, the leaders would say "Don't be stupid, people: we need the white farmers because they have experience farming.  Stop killing them, and stop this stupid talk about stealing ("re-distributing," to use the commie phrase) their land."  But in South Africa there are no checks and balances, and the gruberment controls the press.  And the ruling African National Congress knows it must be as radical as the EFF if it wants to continue to rule.  So to the surprise of no one, the country's legislature recently passed a bill (introduced by the EFF) authorizing the government to seize all white-owned farms--many farmed by the same family for well over a century--without paying any compensation.

When an armed gang invades your home, if you're armed, at least you have a chance.   But what do you do when the invader has the might of the entire government?  Most white farmers realize that they can't sell for more than a percent or two of the true value of their farms, so most are choosing to try to emigrate, even though the entire value of their lives' work will be taken away.  But at least they'll be getting out alive.  Maybe.

Here's how bad it is:  The head of the EFF--a bona fide crazy guy--said, literally, that he is not calling for the massacre of all whites yet.  The key word there, obviously, is “yet.”  Because some farms have built significant defenses, and a handful of farmers will likely fight it out.

So the government is doing what Democrats here want to do:  They've given the whites 90 days to surrender all their guns.

Seizing farms that have been owned and worked by a family for centuries and that are a family’s only means of livelihood, without compensation, will be far easier for government thugs if the victims have no means of defending themselves.

One of the first things Hitler did after he seized power was to confiscate all guns.  Americans and all western citizens should have learned from this.  Of course most didn’t, but maybe we will learn from the bloodbath that's coming in formerly prosperous South Africa.

And by the way:  Back when the whites governed South Africa, everything that happened there made the American news.  Literally every week our media ran a story on some example of whites oppressing blacks there.  But other than now, when was the last time you heard the name "South Africa" even mentioned, in any context?

I'm willing to bet you can't recall.  Because within a year after Mandela's ANC took over, the U.S. media decided South Africa was of no further interest.  So they've been busily killing whites there at the rate of a few a week--and all ghastly torture murders of elderly white farmers hit by armed gangs--and you haven't heard jack about it. 

Can you guess why?

Cuz it hurts The Narrative, comrade.

It'll be interesting to see how many whites have to be murdered there before the NY Times or WaPo or LA Times or one of the alphabet networks finally, grudgingly, quietly mumbles some...unsettling... words near the end of the newscast.

Gotta protect The Narrative, comrade.  We've almost got those stupid Americans thinking Open Borders is the Next New Cool Thing, so we don't wanna spook 'em, eh?

Guess what these people say they're doing

The people in the pic above are "exercising their freedom of speech."  They're doing that by burning an American flag, just like the communist demonstrators of the 1970s.  Cuz as they see it, the U.S. is eeeebil and they hate having to live here.

Since they didn't bring a flag with 'em, they stole it off a pickup truck.  They felt totally justified in doing this because, as Comrade Marx said "All private property is theft."  So they "liberated it."

Perhaps I was too harsh.  After all, some may claim there are other reasons why they're burning the flag, like...

• They hate America and everything it stands for; or
• They hate whites and everything whites hold dear; or
• They're "triggered" by seeing flags with red and white stripes?; or
• They're "defending Maxine Waters.

Their skin color provides a clue, but only eliminates one of the possible answers (that they're "triggered" by red and white stripes):  Actually they claimed they were defending crazy black congresscritter Maxine Waters.

You may well wonder who they believed they were defending Mad Maxine from.  Good question.  Answer is, against whites.

Say what?

Well, turns out that after Mad Maxine called for her supporters to harass any member of the Trump administration who had the gall to go out to dinner or to a store or a gas station (her exact words were "make their lives miserable"), a few white columnists thought this was...I know you'll be surprised...just a tiny bit over the top.  So did any of the columnists (all white) suggest, oh, say, killing Waters?  Hanging her?  Cutting her head off?

Not even close, sparky.  A couple did write columns suggesting that the level of hate Maxine was spounting was likely to further inflame her already crazed followers, and they suggested she might wanna stop with the firebrand speeches.  And a group planned to stage a protest outside one of her California offices.

"SEE??!!  SEE??!!  Doze people be threatenin' ouah Maxine!  So we needs to go protek her!!"

So they showed up--two of em wearing T-shirts saying "REVOLUTION, NOTHING LESS!!"--and burned the flag.

So let's see if we can predict where this goes.  Which of the following analyses seems most likely to ya?

• The people in the pic aren't nearly as angry as their faces look, but are probably just bored, or maybe being paid by the Democrat Socialists of America, so this is essentially a nothing; or
• They're just as mad as their faces look, but as months and then years pass without Trump throwing demonstrators in jail, or deporting actual U.S. citizens (as the Dems shriek), they'll cool off; or
• They're as angry as they look, but once they go home and realize black unemployment is at an all-time low, they'll realize there's no reason to start shooting anyone; or
• They're furious, and because the Media and Dems constantly scream how totally awful life in the U.S. is for blacks, and how totally unfair--ignoring that we just got done with 8 years of a black president--kinda demolishing the whole "unfair/can't get to the top" bulshit, eh?  They  remember seeing murals of a faceless hand cutting off Trump's head--one or two will start shooting.  Cuz, "REVOLUTION, NOTHING LESS," comrade!

Gee, that's a real poser.  Maybe we should ask the brain trusts at MSNBC or CNN or the Democrat Socialists of America what they think.

Little dictators in Pennsylvania threaten to fina a couple $500 per DAY for...holding Bible studies on their farm!

How bad have things gotten in the U.S.?  You don't wanna know.

As most of you know, the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees to all American citizens the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to assemble peaceably.  By the principle of "supremacy" (the legal principle that federal law overrules states and cities), "officials" in subsidiary levels of gruberment [note 1] supposedly aren't permitted to abrogate or infringe on these rights.

The asshole officials in the borough of Sewickley Heights, PA, aren't clear on this concept.  When these little Hitlers discovered that a local couple (the Fetterolfs) were [gasp!!] holding Bible study meetings on their 35-acre farm, they threatened the couple with a fine of $500 PER DAY if they continued.  The threat reportedly contained detailed provisions of activities the city assholes deemed illegal, including hosting Bible study in their home, having meetings where religious songs are sung, conducting any "religious retreats" for church members, or holding fundraisers for religious purposes.

The Independence Law Center has sued the borough on their behalf:  It should be interesting to see if the borough Hitlers show up in court to defend, or fold.  If I were an attorney I would LOVE to litigate this case.

One wag noted that the couple could have avoided all criticism by the town Hitlers if they'd simply told the Hitlers they were studying the Koran or the Communist Manifesto.  The Hitlers would have been scared to death to mess with either.

==
Note 1:  "Gruberment" is a pejorative term for a government that's totally out of control--can't be controlled even by the president.  It's essentially lawless and corrupt from top to bottom, like the FBI under Comey, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe, Chris Wray and Rod Rosenstein.  It's named after Jonathan Gruber, a smug, lying PhD who was the main, lying architect of Obamacare. 

Gruber's infamy is due to his saying several times that everyone working on the thing knew that the loudly-touted "advantages" of Obamacare were lies, and that it would cost far more than Obama and minions were telling the public.  In fact, Gruber said the drafters deliberately wrote the bill in confusing language specifically to make it almost impossible for ordinary voters to understand what was being done.  Also, to make it harder for the Congressional Budget Office to correctly estimate the cost.

Gruber also claimed that they only were able to get it passed due to the stupidity of the average voter.  Seriously, he actually said that.  And the audience--composed of other PhD's and economists-- laughed uproariously!

H/T Moonbattery.https://moonbattery.com/bible-study-meetings-forbidden-on-pennsylvania-farm/

How socialism works (more precisely, how it works...*for awhile*)

Chicago--$28 billion underwater in funding pensions--is on the brink of giving all residents monthly checks

In every large city, city workers get a pension when they retire.  In a few cities, workers pay into their retirement accounts, but in most the annual contribution is made by the city, from tax revenue.

Well, except for Democrat-ruled cities.  Politicians in those cities would much rather spend the money to buy votes, so they pay less into the retirement funds than what the actuarial analysts say is needed to pay out the agreed amount when the worker retires.

"Wait, won't that mean the needed funds won't be there to pay the pensions?"

Congratulations, you must be a Republican.  Dems don't seem able to crack that mystery.

"But if the payments are required (somehow), how the hell do pols get away with having their city contribute less than the amount the experts calculate is needed?"

You're way too smart to be a Democrat.  It's simple:  Annual retirement contributions are invested in a array of things, and there's an average rate of return.  Because of the miracles of compound growth, 30 years later the amount paid in has tripled or quadrupled, depending on that "rate of return."  With me so far?  Good.

Now: The higher the estimated ROR used by the experts to calculate the city's annual contribution to retirement accounts, the less cash the city needs to contribute each year, since the investment is growing faster on its own.

You can already see where this is headed:  To free up cash to buy votes, the HDIC (head Dem in charge) orders the city's retirement managers to re-calculate the required contribution using a rate of return that's...um...absurdly optimistic.  And no one on the council says "That's fraud."  Which, of course, is exactly what it is.

The actuarial folks diplomatically note that the rate is optimistic, but they do as they're ordered, for fear of being fired or not getting a merit raise or whatever.  Result:  "Unfunded pension liability."

Chicago has a gazillion public employees.  As of the end of last year the city of Chicago was about $28 billion short of having pensions fully funded.

Now:  You don't live in Chicago, so how does this affect you?

Like this:  In Chicago, what we call city council members are called "aldermen" (although a move is afoot to ban that word and replace it with "alderpersons").   And Alderman Ameya Pawar recently proposed that the city should pay all residents a "universal basic income," paid by taxpayers.

Yes, this communist rat-bastard wants da gruberment to cut everyone a monthly check--sorta like "super welfare," except residents would get it even if they were making above the cutoff for welfare.  And Pawar has introduced a bill to test the program by giving 1,000 families $500 per month, no questions asked.  Oh, and the communists cleverly, cunningly DON'T call this payment welfare but a..."stipend."  Cuz that's a word unfamiliary to most low-info voters so has no baggage.  Plus it's associated with helping college students pay for college, so who could be against something like that, right?

 The bill already has the backing of the36 of of the city lawmakers, so is guaranteed to have enough votes to pass.

Of course you can already predict what will happen:  First, social-justice snowflakes will scream that giving the same amount to a family as to a single person is unfair to families, thus discrimination, so the final proposal will pay extra for kids, whether biological or not.  Next, snowflakes will wail that $500 bucks a month isn't enough, so that base amount will double or triple.

Now, what does that have to do with unfunded pensions?

Okay, as of 2010 there were 1,194,337 households within the city limits of Chicago.  (More than half the population of the entire state lives in the "Chicago metropolitan area.")  So paying a thousand bucks a month to every household in Chicago will cost the city roughly $14 billion per year.  So when the city finally has to figure out how to tell retired employees their pensions aren't funded, they'll have a great excuse:  "We couldn't have foreseen that the demand for a 'Universsal Basic Income' would be so great, and that messed up all our finances!"

And when it comes down to who gets cut, there'll be about two million people--half of them members of the most politically protected group in the country--who'll be screaming at the pols NOT to reduce the monthly checks.

So what will happen next?  The city will start schmoozing the federal government to bail out their ghastly-stupid, self-serving, idiotic, moronic, self-serving (yes, I know that's twice now) decisions.  And if a Democrat is president, it's a done deal.

Which means YOU, today's students, will have your tax dollars effectively stolen by the Democrats in D.C. to keep the Chicago Democrat machine in power for your entire lifetime.

Oh, do I hear a bunch of you saying "That's ridiculous!  First, no rational city council would ever pass such a thing.  Second, the courts would quickly rule it unconstitutional.  Third, if it did pass, city leaders would set the monthly payments at a much lower level, one the city could afford."

Ah, I see you just arrived on the planet and are totally unfamiliar with the way things work here.

No matter.  Enjoy your stay.  Meanwhile for the rest of you:  The proposal already has a majority in the council, so passage is assured.  Of course that's just for the pilot program, so there's a chance Rahm might...nah.  More on that below.

Okay, how about the courts?  Well since this isn't a federal program, it'll be almost impossible to get a federal judge to even look at it.  And Illinois state courts?  You gotta' be kiddin,' right?  Buncha' corrupt clowns.

How about the possibility that city leaders would adopt the program but at a modest level that the city could afford?  After all, Rahm Emanuel (former Obama chief of staff) is very sharp when it comes to running the city's finances properly,..... Sorry, couldn't do that with a straight face.  Rahm is the guy who coined the infamous phrase "Never let a crisis go to waste" (which, interestingly, was a tactic used heavily by Obama) and you can expect he'll hug this proposal so tight he may strain a muscle.

Finally, what are the chances a future Dem president will order the federal government to bail the city out?  Zero.  Dems can't win without Illinois.  And with the population of the city at 2.7 million, no Dem pol wants to anger Chicago residents.  So the bailout is a certainty.

Okay, one last possible saver would be fed courts stopping a pres from doing that.  But since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Obamacare, that bridge has already been crossed.  Also, the feds bailed out New York City back in the late 1970's (forgot that, did ya?) so again, no clear federal barrier. 

Can anyone tell real headlines from satire anymore?

Some headlines, some fictional headlines.  Question is...which is which?

• Democrats demand Supreme Court nominee not be unduly influenced by U.S. Constitution
• San Francisco: man dumping off 20 lbs of human waste in plastic bag on street corner cited for using non-biodegradable plastic bag
• Mueller investigation has finally determined that the lyrics to Louie Louie are not about Trump and Russian collusion
• California to transition all state jobs to illegal aliens by 2020; experts say the savings will let state avoid bankruptcy and still have money left over for social programs for illegal aliens
• Senator Bernie Sanders introduces "single-payer public transportation bill," which will end America's unequal, unfair, and expensive private transportation system
• CNN: Trump reverses Obama's executive order banning hurricanes; ending the ban is likely to kill thousands of Americans
• When asked if to find North Korea on a map, 46% of U.S. high school students didn't know what a map was
• BREAKING on CNN, WaPo, NYT:  Anonymous sources claim Vladimir Putin may have ties to Russia
• University ranked "most intolerant of free speech" in new study fights the accusation by banning the student newspaper from reporting the story
• CNN: New evidence proves Donald Trump conspired with voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pensylvania to defeat Hillary Clinton
• Study finds yet another area of unconscious racism in white children: 99.3% build only white snowmen
• BREAKING: Millions of uncounted votes found on Hillary's private voting machine in her Chappaqua bathroom

Hat tip to The Peoples' Cube.

Lying Media loved Obama, so he got covers like this:

Five days ago a Trump-hating CNN talking head (redundancy alert) tweeted "Ask yourself what your life would be like with a media that only did things the president liked."

Blogger Jason Howerton realized the absurd lack of awareness and replied, in effect, "Dude, are you kidding?  We just got thru 8 years of that crap!"

Bias in the media?  Nah, couldn't be!

Think the "halo effect" was an accident?  Uh...no.

Oh yeah, Obozo was **JUST LIKE REAGAN**--except in every possible way

The myths that inspire socialists and "progressives"

If someone told you they wanted to introduce a new system of government that would

•  greatly restrict individual freedom;
•  would murder or imprison millions if they objected;
•  would drastically reduce your standard of living; and
•  would encourage children to spy on parents and report them to the government

...most rational people would tell that person, in very direct terms, to f-off.

This is why the people who push socialism--including so-called “progressives”--cunningly wrap their proposals in inspiring myths and propaganda.  Not surprisingly, despite the ghastly failures of socialism, millions of Americans of all ages accept most or all of these myths as true. 

Filled with socialist slogans, and dreams of a glorious future in which everyone has plenty and no one has to struggle, those who accept the myths and lies have become a major source of Democrat-party votes and power.

Yesterday two guys published an analysis of these myths.    I've edited those below, but it's well worth your time to read the original.

The coup that marked the start of the Russian Revolution happened on Nov. 7, 1917.  What came next was the real revolution, as the communists abolished private propert--and with it, individual rights.  All authority and decision-making power rested with the communists.

In the novel Doctor Zhivago, Boris Pasternak provided an unforgettable description of the process:

Everywhere there were new elections: for the running of housing, trade, industry, and municipal services. Commissars were appointed to each-- men in black leather jerkins, with unlimited powers and iron will, armed with the means of intimidation and revolvers. They knew the shrinking bourgeois breed, the average holder of cheap government stocks, and spoke to them without the slightest pity and with Mephistophelean smiles, as to petty thieves caught in the act. These were the people who reorganized everything according to plan.  [Everything] became "Bolshevised."

The result was that civil society vanished into chaos.  But to the communists this wasn't a bug, but a feature.

One of the core myths of communism is that it's superior to capitalism.  At this point, people of average intelligence should be moved to ask, "Superior how, exactly?"

The usual response from the communists is that communism would "bury capitalism," thru greater economic output.  This claim was the core of Marxist / Leninist theory:  When the workers "threw off their chains" — freed from exploitation under greedy capitalist bosses -- the state would take care of everyone’s needs.  Workers would no longer have to struggle to find a job, or pay for food or housing or medical care or transportation or education, because the Party would provide everything.

And of course the Party would treat everyone equally.

One of the keys to this economic marvel was the miracle of central planning.  As Marx and Lenin saw it, the free market was horribly inefficient, in part because there was no brilliant central authority telling all those companies what to produce, and how much of each of tens of thousands of goods should be produced to make everything come out right. 

Marx and Lenin were convinced the free market was no better than randomly-moving molecules.  What was needed was a central planning authority that would organize things.  And to people who didn't understand Adam Smith's "invisible hand," that notion made perfect sense.

And yet it didn’t work.  Right from the start, it did not work--partly because in a command economy there's no feedback mechanism telling producers that people want more of X but less Y.
Faced with severe bread shortages, Lenin ordered farmers (peasants) to turn over their harvest to the state — at prices so low they couldn’t cover their production costs.  Lenin was surprised to find that the peasants responded by planting less, and selling as much of their product as they could on the black market. Many traveled to nearby cities and towns and sold food from sacks on their backs.

Lenin ordered that such “bagmen” should be shot on sight--and still the black market grew.  To starving people, hunger and starvation were a greater threat than a policeman’s bullet.

As food production continued to fall, Lenin relented, endorsing a New Economic Plan that, at least temporarily, allowed peasants to sell produce on the market. 

If any communist apparatchik realized that the profit motive and free-market pricing are very at matching supply to demand, and that the profit motive drives innovation and spurs people to work harder, no one was willing to risk telling this to Lenin.

By huge contrast, with the State providing everything, there was no thing to motivate anyone to work hard and be creative.

Think of how different that is from the voluntary exchange in a free society — where people compete with one another to satisfy the needs of others.

Another powerful propaganda piece of socialist dogma is that all profit was theft, and thus served no useful purpose.  It followed that the only way anyone could amass great wealth was by exploiting workers.  Certainly both these points struck the average low-information citizen as perfectly logical.  What the communists never mentioned was that profit was a huge motivator.


One of the nagging little unresolved problems of communism was how many people the system either exiled to Siberian jails ("the Gulag") or simply executed outright.  But the leaders had a good answer: Because "everyone agreed" that communism was the best of all possible worlds, it followed that anyone trying to block its implementation must be an enemy of the state.  Because the stakes were so huge, it was worth killing or exiling those few "enemies" who refused to go along.  Right, comrade?

As comrade Lenin put it, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.  The fact that the “eggs” were actually human beings was never mentioned.

The same logic was used to justify having school teach kids to "inform" on their parents.  As the leaders saw it, this wasn't even a negative, but was a necessary step to achieve the perfect socialist state as quickly as possible.

Communists tout China's booming economy as proof of the superiority of communism.  But China's economy didn't start growing after Deng Xiaoping opened China to foreign investment and global markets.  He took an even bigger step in 1984 when he allowed peasant farmers to sell in the open market.

But the trifecta was when Deng denounced one of the core concepts of Marxism: that profit was theft.
Instead Deng said “To get rich is glorious.” He and other Chinese leaders since then have systematically freed ownership of the means of production in many other areas.One upshot of that: China has been producing new billionaires at a faster rate than any country in the world and — according to Forbes— will soon have more billionaires than the United States. But the still more important upshot is this: In both India and China, rapid business formation has driven rapid economic growth… and accounted for the greatest anti-poverty program in recent times — lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the last couple of decades.

Every form of socialism — from the mild to the murderous — depends upon government coercion and the curtailment of liberty — including the forcible redistribution of wealth and demands for an ever-growing list of “free” services by government.  It is more than a little disturbing that so many Americans have jumped on the progressive bandwagon.

No member of the Lying Media ever asked Obama to explain what he meant by "I'll have more flexibility"

After president Trump met Vladimir Putin a few days ago, all the Lying Mainstream Media rags are screaming that Trump is "in Putin's pocket" because he...well, fill in anything you like after the dots.

So in light of this, it's instructive to take a look at how the Lying Media treated a...um...faux pas by their Messiah (the emperor Obozo).

A month or two before the 2012 election, Obozo met with then Russia president Dmitri Medvedev (Putin was premier, so Medvedev was below Putin in the hierarchy).  During a break in filming, Obozo leaned close to the Russian presidet, patted his thigh and said "This is my last election. After it's over I'll have more flexibility."  
 
Medvedev knew exactly what Obozo meant by that, and replied "I'll transmit that to Vladimir.  And I stand with you."

The exchange was caught on an open mike.  The Lying Media ignored it.  Internet bloggers didn't.

Now here's the interesting part:  A friend pointed out that no member of the Lying Media ever asked Obozo to explain what he meant by "I'll have more flexibility."  Because it didn't matter to the media:  Whatever Obozo said was abolutely perfect, so it was unthinkable for any member of the media to ask him to explain.

See the exchange for yourself.

Minnesota: woman who hanged a toddler at her daycare gets probation

Minnesota woman a) tries to kill toddler by hanging him; b) hits a bicyclist with her car as she flees; c) hits a second car; d) and uses her car to push another car and driver 10 blocks.  Judge sentences her to probation, no prison.

Minnesota is notoriously liberal.  As in, insanely so.  These are the folks who routinely allowed natives of Somalia to board flights headed overseas carrying a million cash in suitcases--several times a month.  Never got curious.  Really strangely, crazy liberal.

Nataliia Karia ran a daycare out of her home.  A father who was dropping off his son at Karia’s home found a toddler hanging from a noose in the basement.  He released the child (who survived) and started raising hell with Karia, who jumped in her car and fled.

She struck a bicyclist and two cars, pushing one ten blocks.  She pleaded guilty to attempted murder, third-degree assault and criminal vehicular operation.

On Monday Hennepin County District Judge Jay Quam sentenced her to...probation, no jail.

His reasoning is...goofy at best:  He said he agreed that she was a “low risk” to commit more crimes.
He said her actions were “the perfect storm of factors unlikely to ever be repeated.”

Excuse me?  If a guy fatally shot someone, but the circumstances were highly unusual, such that they weren't likely to occur again, the same argument would hold.  But have you ever heard of someone getting off completely (probation is NOT a deterrent) for such a thing?  No.

The wreckless driving that almost cost a bicyclist his leg should have landed her in jail for at least six months.  But no, nothing.

On the other hand, I guess it's no worse than California juries letting a 7-times-deported illegal who fatally shot a tourist on a pier in San Francisco--admittedly carelessly, not intentionally--off with a slap on the wrist.

You too can predict the future, at least on a large scale

I'd like to show you how one can predict future events.  It's a skill anyone can master, as you'll see.

A recent survey found that only 42 percent of Americans can even name the three branches of the federal government, let alone tell you the exact function of each.

Now it turns out "recent" is a relative term:  The survey was taken in 2006, so a dozen years ago.

Now, based on just the events you've watched unfold in the last dozen years, would you predict that today the percentage of Americans who can name the three branches of the federal government is higher than the 42% found in 2006, or lower?

Sure.  You know that even though the total amount spent on K-12 education has risen 30% since 2006, the nation's schools are teaching less and less of what's important, and more garbage (i.e. trivia or wastes of time).  You know that the number of attacks by black students on blacks who try to learn in school has risen exponentially, whichis likely to have reduced the amount of useful education black kids receive in school

You know that even though the media has lied to us for decades, it's gotten exponentially worse in the last dozen years.  So bottom line is, it's highly, highly likely that people would know more about government today than 12 years ago.

Admittedly, in the above example you were looking at how historical data probably changed over time, and you based your guess on what you've observed over the intervening dozen years; whereas  in trying to predict in 2006 youd have had to guess whether trends you could see in the five years before would continue, there's almost no difference.

My point is that it doesn't take magic to extrapolate trends.  The funny part is that so many talking heads and political leaders don't seem to be able to do that--judging by the easily-forecast horrible results of most of their ideas.

Found: Putin's secret plan to destroy America !!

FOUND:  Putin's secret plot to destroy America!!  Started with collaborating with PDT to steal the election from Her Highness.



And the scary part is, it's working!